To think we can't afford the triple lock

If we keep the triple lock will pensioners stop complaining? Because it would be worth it then.

The boomer generation are, and probably will be for the foreseeable future, the wealthiest generation we will ever see. They benefitted most from the housing market, their children had free university education, the NHS had been established, we were part of the European trading block, then had years of EU membership, not home conflicts, an earlier retirement age, final salary pensions. They had it good, still have it like really good.

Which wasn’t their fault it was luck.

Yes there will be members of that generation who didn’t take advantage of any of this, didn’t plan for their old age, thought the good times would last forever, didn’t work as hard as they should etc etc like there is in all generations but on the whole (because you have to make government policies not on an individual basis) they had it good, still do in fact most are mortgage free, most of the rest are on social housing very very few privately rent.

If they can’t understand how much harder financially subsequent generations have it then fine, whatever live in that bubble, but stop complaining.

If you live in an expensive house but only have the state pension to live off and you choose to shiver away in your castle that is your choice. You have the option of liquidating some of your asset, you could downsize or take out equity from it. Your choice. At least you have that choice.

The state pension of course isn’t minimal wage, it is assumed that you don’t have the expenses of working, housing costs and raising a family. Plus it assumes you saved a bit during decades of work.

So really pensioners moaning about money is water off a ducks back. You get the state pension the triple lock is safe for now, just stop whinging. It’s enough to survive it never promised to be anything else. Cut your cloth etc etc

Social housing was also easily accessible in the 70s and 80s. It was commonplace for young people to "fall out" with their parents during Summer holidays between school/college/Uni and be given a freebie council flat (along with unemployment benefits!) and then suddenly find themselves reconciled with their parents when it came to September, they were back in education, and no longer eligible for benefits/freebie council flat!

My first boyfriend did exactly that and we "enjoyed" his freebie council flat for the Summer, before he went back into full time education! It was a very common piss take at the time!

Not just those in education either, we had a couple of "single mother" friends who orchestrated arguments with their parents claiming they could no longer live in their family home, so were given council housing, then, years later, they'd "reconcile" and move back into the family home when the child-related benefits started to dry up as the kids got older. In the meantime, they'd spend loads of time at the parents' home, parents would baby sit, etc - i.e. no sign of the so-called arguments, etc. Again, all made up as they knew how to play the system.

Likewise the ones who claim to be single, despite having multiple children by the same bloke over many years, just to get the council house/flat and "single" benefits. Where the bloke claimed to live elsewhere, usually with parents, as they knew they'd lose benefits if they were seen to live together. That's still common today, but it was also common decades ago.

It was the 70s and 80s that started the current "benefits culture". I just don't understand why so many people, especially the older posters, seem to think it's a recent thing - it's not. If anything, benefits seem harder to claim these days as a lot of the "loopholes" are now so well known that the authorities are clamping down and rules have been changed over time (such as stopping the "Summer" benefit claims for youngsters during their Summer holidays!!).

SG?

I'm a pensioner and I completely agree.

I heard on the news last night that the pension will rise to over £13k in 2027 but there will be no income tax on it.

I wonder how they're going to make that work.

We can afford the triple lock but not net zero or paying for so many asylum seekers.
Climate change surely should be a paramount concern for older people given the heatwave deaths.

Who's complaining? That'll be the OP and those agreeing with them. The whingers and moaners on here aren't the pensioners. Some are defending their lot.
To say we need to reconsider the triple lock isn't complaining. It will affect everybody won't it. Anyway your comment is rude.

We can afford the triple lock but not net zero or paying for so many asylum seekers.
Climate change surely should be a paramount concern for older people given the heatwave deaths.

Who's complaining? That'll be the OP and those agreeing with them. The whingers and moaners on here aren't the pensioners. Some are defending their lot.
To say we need to reconsider the triple lock isn't complaining. It will affect everybody won't it. Anyway your comment is rude.

How many young people, or older have artificial grass or paved gardens? I doubt if it's pensioners.
A lot of young people don't have gardens!

To not expect any retaliation when you start these threads is naive.
I was hoping for a sensible discussion of the topic.
Unless you would call someone a moaner and whinger in real life for having a pretty ordinary opinion then I think it is rude. But you don't, fine.

To not expect any retaliation when you start these threads is naive.
I was hoping for a sensible discussion of the topic.
Unless you would call someone a moaner and whinger in real life for having a pretty ordinary opinion then I think it is rude. But you don't, fine.

To not expect any retaliation when you start these threads is naive.
I was hoping for a sensible discussion of the topic.
Unless you would call someone a moaner and whinger in real life for having a pretty ordinary opinion then I think it is rude. But you don't, fine.

To not expect any retaliation when you start these threads is naive.
I was hoping for a sensible discussion of the topic.
Unless you would call someone a moaner and whinger in real life for having a pretty ordinary opinion then I think it is rude. But you don't, fine.

Who's complaining? That'll be the OP and those agreeing with them. The whingers and moaners on here aren't the pensioners. Some are defending their lot and some have a different POV.

How many young people, or older have artificial grass or paved gardens? I doubt if it's pensioners.
A lot of young people don't have gardens!

Try to look at pensioners as human beings. Fellow ones. I despair sometimes on here at these threads and ones about benefits where people are viewed as "lesser" or "other".

We all should know how that's gone in the past.

There are threads like this raging at pensioners "getting" £12k a year and people "getting" benefits then other threads where apparently £100k a year doesn't go that far.

I have never had a "benefit" in my life. Family Allowance wasn't considered a "benefit". In fact nothing was. It was called "social security" which was the proper term.

But I don't judge fellow human beings for being less fortunate than me.

We seem to have imported greed and a "man mind thyself" mentality from the US.

It's depressing.

@frozendaisy You're making the mistake of lumping all 'boomers' together. It goes all the way to end of 1964. I'm technically a 'boomer'. When I finished education unemployment was very high, although those graduating a decade earlier had their pick of the jobs. My children didn't get free university education. Nor did my sister's and brother's children, and my siblings are a decade older than me. It's only the very oldest boomers, those born in 40s or at a push very early 50s whose children weren't charged fees. And yes, we did get free university, but there were far fewer university places. Many people of my age just couldn't go to university at all. At least it's much more widely available now.

Only no income tax for pensioners who don't have any other private pensions.

I don't think comparing state pension and salaries of £100k+ is comparing apples with apples.

Firstly, a salary is earned; you are paid an agreed compensation for your labour, skills and expertise. That is not the same as receiving an allowance from the government.

Secondly, those who complain of £100k+ not going that far is in response to an assumption that this is a huge amount of money. The percentage of workers who earn £125,000 or more is 3%, the monthly take home is £6,504., yet the 97th centile house is £680,000. A 95% mortgage on that would cost c. £3,500 pm leaving £3,000 to cover childcare (free hours lost at this salary point), food, council tax, insurance, clothing etc. etc. So, in short, the top 3% of earners can't afford to live like their achievements suggest they should due to property prices childcare, and a tax system that has not taken into account inflation, sneakily using boiled frog tactics to relieve medium to higher earners of their wages.

Thirdly, state pension is what is provided as a starting point. It should be enough to live on. But it shouldn't be, and no one should be under the illusion that it will be, any more than an amount to live a basic day to day existence. If you want more than that, save.

Yes, but Uni is more widely available because huge numbers of jobs/careers/professions have become graduate only entry. Don't blame youngsters for that. They're just dealing with the hand they've been dealt. Back in the 70s/80s, you could get a good office job with prospects with a handful of O levels, and a professional training job (banking, accountancy, etc) with 3 A levels. Nowadays, try that! Even basic office jobs are often graduate entry, as is most public sector work, i.e. nursing, teaching, social workers, etc etc.